The Koran says: "Noone questions Him about anything He does, but men are
questioned" (21:23). God does not have to justify his norms even if Muslim
jurists are of the opinion that divine norms are intended to bring good
to Man. The criteria of goodness elude Man most of the time.

However, there is a tendency among the Muslims as well as the
Jews today, to try to justify religious norms a posteriori, conferring
beneficial results upon them, real or fictitious. It is a recourse to reason
to justify religion. Cases in point are circumcision and dietary taboos.
It proves that the idea of God hurting human beings simply in order to
brand them like cattle is not accepted anymore.

The supporters of male and female circumcision, after proving
the existence of a related religious norm, will buckle down to demonstrate
the advantages of circumcision as well as the disadvantages of non-circumcision,
in order to comfort the believer, while answering back to those opposed
to it. As for the opponents of female circumcision, they, unless they are
unbelievers, rejecting any religious justification, also fight on two fronts:
after denying the existence of a religious norm prescribing female circumcision
(the only one they are interested in), they try to prove its harmful characteristics
in order to ban it.

And if reason does not succeed in proving that religion is correct?
Then, let it be challenged, as will be seen further on.

I. MALE CIRCUMCISION

1. Advantages of male circumcision

Muslim authors skim over male circumcision. They only see advantages and,
most of all, the subject does not trigger any debate in the West. According
to Al-Hadidi (an opponent of female circumcision), male non-circumcision
can cause penile infections arising from urine droplets. It can develop
into cancer, requiring the penis to be amputated entirely 92.
Circumcision is even believed to prevent cancer in the circumcised man's
partner, as mentioned by Doctor Al-Fangari, who goes on to state that it
helps to extend the length of copulation, thanks to the liberation of the
glans 93. Their Jewish counterparts make the same type
of arguments. It is enough to have the Christians, to whom Saint-Paul suggests
circumcision in their heart rather than in their flesh, turn green with
envy 94! If only Saint Paul could have heard our Jewish
and Muslim medical experts before rejecting the obligation to circumcise!

Imam Shaltut does not find any basis for male and female circumcision,
be it in the Koran or in the Sunnah from Mohammed. Therefore it must be
judged according to the general Islamic consensus which forbids hurting
anyone, unless advantages outnumber disadvantages. For the boys, he states
that circumcision is beneficial because it cuts off the foreskin which
harbours filth and promotes cancer and other diseases. As such, it is a
protective and preventive measure. Thus its mandatory quality in Muslim
law 95.

Logically, if male circumcision were beneficial, it should be
generalized. Male circumcision cannot however be justified solely on the
basis of its usefulness in certain pathological conditions. A foot may
be amputated under medical imperative if it is gangrenous and amputation
will then certainly be beneficial. Nevertheless, nobody would call for
generalized foot amputation among the followers of any given religion
96. The argument is compelling, unless it can be shown that the relevant
religious adepts have penises noticeably different from those of their
fellow humans.

Let us point out here that circumcision has its enthusiasts among
Christians who believe the Bible to be a scientific book. This is especially
the case in the U.S.A. where obstetricians "sever at birth the foreskins
of future Methodists, Adventists, Catholics, Sectarians of Love, if not
good brave Atheists". To them, uncircumcised males "can only be country
people and half-witted" 97. In that country, the number
of new-born who are circumcised is estimated at 50%. But in 1975, the American
health commission stated that circumcision was not a good hygienic measure.
Since then, circumcision has been reduced considerably 98.
The pro-circumcision people then launched a campaign to persuade the commission
to reverse its decision, claiming that circumcision prevents infantile
urinary tract infections and even AIDS transmission, a claim denied by
Swedish experts 99.

2. Disadvantages of male circumcision

As noted above, male circumcision is of no interest to most people. Doctor
G,rard Zwang, quoted above, stands out as one of the very few opponents
of male circumcision in France. Not only does he not see any advantages,
but he notices disadvantages. He writes:

One must be extremely suspicious when magicians and shamans try
to irrefutably legitimate ritual sexual mutilations (unless one belongs
to the clan of those incurably naive ethnographers). As heirs of the only
extra-European culture touched by some sort of scientific thinking and
often contributing to its development, it is the Judaizers who provide
the so-called "logical" arguments in favour of circumcision
100.

He names the five "reasonable" reasons produced by the Western
partisans of circumcision, reasons which support those given by the Muslims:

Circumcision testifies to the legitimate concern of lifting the sexuality
of the individual to perfection;

Circumcision is a good hygienic precaution;

Circumcision prevents masturbation;

Circumcision prevents cancer;

Circumcision allows better control at the "plateau" stage.

After taking apart those reasons one by one 101, he
points out that the foreskin of the infant acts as a sheath preventing
the glans from soaking permanently in urine and protecting it from irritations
and inflammations due to contact with clothing, soaked swaddling clothes
and diapers. He insists that circumcision at birth is "practically always
responsible for inflamed stricture of the urinary meatus". The protective
function of the foreskin for the glans and the penis retains its usefulness
during erotic activities, thus the importance of the foreskin at the affective
level during childhood, youth and adulthood 102.

He concludes that "there is no [medical] reason to systematically
deprive all new-born, little boys or men of an integral part of the normal
human anatomy". Even for foreskins with problems, he advises against circumcision
and prefers those simple, surgical procedures which retain the foreskin.
He recommends that plastic surgeons apply themselves to mastering the technique
of possible preputial reconstruction for circumcised patients suffering
from "balanic peeling", one of the consequences of circumcision 103.

As for surgeons requested to perform circumcision, he asks them
to refuse to comply. If it is an adult who makes the request, the surgeon
has the right to raise the matter of conscience, as some do, based on liberalism,
to avoid carrying out abortions. If it is a normal child brought in by
his parents, "the surgeon is entitled to call upon the impossibility of
committing an assault and battery on a minor and advise them to wait until
their offspring reaches his majority" 104.

It might be necessary to add to the doctors' advice, the psychologists'
answer to these questions: what is the influence of circumcision on the
victims of paranoia105? on the conscious or unconscious male rage and violence
in the American culture? on the conflicts between Muslims themselves or
between Jews and Muslims? It would be also useful to know what is the relation
between circumcision and situational homosexuality (by opposition to constitutional
homosexuality).

II. FEMALE CIRCUMCISION

1. Advantages of female circumcision in compliance
with the sunnah

Circumcision not carried out according to the sunnah is forbidden by all
Muslim religious circles. For some, "the practice of female circumcision
as it is carried out on their daughters by some women from backward countries,
is an offence punishable by law"106. Nobody comes to its defense even if
it is the most practiced form of circumcision in Muslim countries. This
condemnation is based mostly on the exciser's narration, mentioned earlier.
What is strange in this case is that those very religious circles do not
try to use this narration in a positive way to fight the practice. As an
example, it is estimated that 89.2% of the women in North Sudan are circumcised:
82.3% by infibulation; only 19.2% of Christian women are circumcised that
way. More Christians (57.7%) than Muslims (20.8%) appear to favour abolition
of this practice for their daughters 107.

If these religious scholars, all male chauvinists, are opposed
to female circumcision not in compliance with the sunnah, they nevertheless
do approve of it when it is sunnah-conform. This type of female circumcision,
by the way, is not described fully: for some, it is only removal of a minimal
amount of clitoris skin in application of the exciser's narration; for
others, it involves the whole clitoris and labia minora.

The goal of defending female circumcision in compliance with the
sunnah is expressed in no uncertain terms by Al-I'tissam, an Islamic magazine
from Cairo. This magazine protests against the WHO, accusing the organization
of "distorting the truth of Islam"; Al-I'tissam requests Al-Azhar and all
religious scholars to "open their eyes and be on the alert for those ideas
coming to us from outside, so we can fight them, prove their foolishness
and save Islamic customs" 108. Here are the advantages
of female circumcision according to its male supporters:

A) It maintains cleanliness

Doctor Hamid Al-Ghawabi states that bad smells in women, cleanliness
notwithstanding, can only be eliminated by cutting off the clitoris
and labia minora109.

B) It prevents diseases

The number of nymphomaniacs is less among circumcised women. The husband
may catch this disease and even die of it 110. Female
circumcision prevents vaginal cancer 111 and swelling
of the clitoris which could drive the woman to masturbation or homosexual
relations 112.

C) It brings calm and gives radiance to the face

Female circumcision shields the girl from nervousness at an early age
and prevents her from getting a yellow face. This statement is based on
a narration by Mohammed: "Circumcision is makrumah for women" and "give
them a glowing face" 113. The exciser's narration is
also quoted to say that circumcision makes a woman's face more beautiful
and makes her more attractive for her husband 114.
According to a supporter of female circumcision, the latter brings good
health and feminine grace to the girl and protects her morality, chastity
and honour, maintaining within reason, of course, the necessary sexual
sensitivity 115.

D) It keeps the couple together and prevents drug use

Doctor Hamid Al-Ghawabi admits that female circumcision does reduce the
sexual instinct in women, but he sees this as a positive effect. With
age, the male sexual instinct lessens. His circumcised wife will then
be at the same level as him. If she was not, her husband would be unable
to satisfy her, which then would lead him to drug-use in order to succeed
116.

E) It prevents her falling into what is forbidden

This is the most frequently cited reason. Professor Al-'Adawi from Al-Azhar
says that female circumcision is makrumah, that is helps (the woman) "to
remain shy and virtuous. In the Orient, where the climate is hot, a girl
gets easily aroused if she is not circumcised. It makes her shameless
and prey to her sexual instincts, except those to whom God shows compassion"
117.

Judge 'Arnus says that female circumcision diminishes sexual
instinct which, if not kept in control, reduces the person to the condition
of an animal, but if this sexual instinct does not exist, then circumcision
reduces her to a lifeless state. He favours moderation and notes that
intact men and women have, more often than not, a "one track mind"
118. Salim, Chairman of the Muslim Supreme Court (abolished in 1955),
reiterates that female circumcision is a makrumah, a meritorious action,
that the woman is under no obligation to submit to, but preferably she
should. He adds that circumcision protects girls from infection, swelling
of her external genitalia and from strong psychic reactions and sexual
excitement which, if repressed, lead to neurosis or, if unleashed, lead
to the path of vice. This happens especially during youth, when hormones
of reproduction are at their peak. Salim goes on to describe this circumcision.
The procedure consists of cutting off the bulging part of the clitoris
which is out of the hood "so as not to become a cause of arousal while
the girl is moving, rubbing against her clothing, riding animals, etc...
Thus its name khafd: to lower the level" 119. Gad-al-Haq,
Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar, adds that our times call for female circumcision
"because of mixing of the sexes at public gatherings. If the girl is
not circumcised, she subjects herself to multiple causes of excitation
leading her to vice and perdition in a depraved society"
120.

2. Disastrous consequences of any kind of female circumcision

Opponents of female circumcision reject it because of the seriousness
of the complications which depend on the method adopted.

A) Physical and mental damage

Many complications may occur after female circumcision. Doctor Mahran
classifies them as follows:

Psychosexual complications: in the woman: a sense of loss of her
femininity, lack of libido, less frequent coitus, absence of orgasm,
depression and psychosis, high rate of divorce; in the man: premature
ejaculation, polygamy.

There is no surgical technique which will ever repair this mutilation,
which will ever bring back the erogenous sensitivity of the amputated
receptors. The erotic function in an excised woman is destroyed for ever.
The surgeon can only correct the complications; if the mutilated woman's
genitalia will never again give her pleasure, at least it should not cause
her undue suffering 122.

The Muslim enthusiasts of female circumcision do not deny
those complications, but state that they arise out of the manner in
which the surgery is performed, mostly because nobody pays attention
to the conditions laid down by Muslim law. Al-Sukkari writes: if one
goes to a barber for an appendectomy, must we conclude that this form
of surgery has never been provided for in an Islamic book and thus should
be banned because the way it is performed is wrong? He adds that female
circumcision has been a practice for centuries and is a custom accepted
by Muslim law. The so-called consequences never occurred in the past.
And if we hear of them today, the responsibility lies with those who
perform it 123.

B) Drug use

We saw earlier that the enthusiasts of female circumcision called sunnah
plead in favour of it because it prevents the use of drugs. The opponents
use the reverse argument 124. The link between female
circumcision and the hashish plague in Egypt has been widely exposed by
El-Masry. Female circumcision distorts sexual relations: "Very few healthy
males can fully succeed in bringing a circumcised woman to orgasm. She
has lost her capacity for pleasure. The man will soon have to admit that
he alone cannot do it. There is only one solution: hashish". He quotes
many references, including Police Chief Safwat for whom: "narcotics are
widely used in Egypt, because they are linked in people's minds to sexual
activities, themselves linked to excision, unknown in Europe". Doctor
Hanna adds: "The man will resort to narcotics to satisfy his wife sexually.
Excision is responsible for her lack of arousal and the husband has to
take drugs to be able to hold his erection as long as necessary". He states
that women are the ones to request that their husbands use drugs before
sex: "They know from experience that it is their only chance of reaching
orgasm, for hashish is the only cure for their mutilated clitoris" 125.
The Cairo magazine Al-Tahrir draws the following conclusion in its issue
of August 20, 1957: "If you want to fight against narcotics, ban excision"
126.

The same link is observed between female circumcision and
narcotics in Yemen where the plague of qat is widespread. An attempt
to ban it in the British Colony of Aden, in April 1957, almost triggered
a revolt. Yemenis saw in this measure "an infringement upon their basic
rights". Women themselves showed their reprobation, claiming it was
an attack on their conjugal lives. Since June 24, 1958, the use of qat
has been legal in Aden 127.

C) Familial problems

The woman, having no sexual release, becomes rebellious and neurotic.
Instead of protecting her morality, female circumcision leads her elsewhere
looking for sexual satisfaction at any cost. Thus the obsessive belief
in djinn (zar), which does not exist anywhere else but in Egypt "as if
genies (djinns) could only live in Egypt" 128.

D) Ineffectiveness in preventing diseases

For Doctor Al-Hadidi, there is no medical value in female circumcision,
contrary to male circumcision, since the woman does not have a foreskin
retaining germs 129. Doctor Nawal El-Saadawi denies
also that female circumcision will reduce the incidence of genital cancer
130.

III. MITIGATED POSITION OF RELIGIOUS CIRCLES
CONFRONTED WITH REASON

The arguments on costs and benefits of male and female circumcision
might be of some value if one accepts an absolute parameter to begin
with: respect for physical integrity. Any infringement upon the latter
must be forbidden or permitted only on the basis of the costs and benefits
of circumcision. At present, this seems to be the case neither among
Muslims, nor among others, especially where male circumcision is concerned.

As for female circumcision, as we said earlier, Muslim religious
circles are opposed to it, if it is not conform to sunnah, mostly because
of the exciser's narration. As far as sunnah itself is concerned, those
circles refuse to condemn it on principle and the criteria mentioned
above, even if differences of opinion can be noticed among them.

1. To apply the norm for the norm's sake

Hamrush, Chairman of the fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar, rejects the
idea that female circumcision prevents diseases or keeps girls healthy
since, contrary to boys, they do not have a foreskin to harbour filth.
He also rejects the idea that it is a protection of the woman's honour
and morality, keeping her from throwing caution to the winds. If it
were the case, then one would assume that circumcision is an obligation,
and not just a makrumah. However, the Sheikh holds the opinion that
female circumcision should be performed to fulfil the teaching of Mohammed
131.

2. The norm has benefits unknown to reason

Professor Al-Laban says that simple scientific observation must not
be used to destroy the norms established by God (including male and
female circumcision) and announced by Mohammed, but rather confirm them
132. If we do not understand the wisdom of those norms, the deficiency
is to be found in our reasoning, not with God. The Islamic law is the
final law and is to rule at all times. Our human brains cannot possibly
find fault with it. Mohammed does not speak from the heat of passion
133. He explains how science confirms the religious
norm. Sunnah circumcision lets the blood vessels heal (what other types
of circumcision do not) and makes purification easy once the excrescence
is cut off because it is this part which retains urine and menstrual
fluid. This wisdom of the Islamic norm was subsequently acknowledged
by science 134.

In an Egyptian fatwa of June 23, 1951, it is said:

Medical theories relative to diseases and to their cure are not
constant; they are subjected to changes with time and research. Therefore,
it is impossible to use them as grounds to criticize female circumcision.
The Lawmaker, wise, expert and knowledgeable, uses his wisdom to rectify
the human creation. Experience has taught us that, given time, the true
meaning of the Lawmaker's wisdom, which was hidden, is unveiled to us
135.

3. Neither misdeed nor interdiction

Al-Sukkari states that Mohammed never indicated any reservations regarding
the harmfulness of female circumcision. How, in these conditions, could
any ordinary man forbid it under this pretense? Can we imagine the Prophet
keeping silent about something hurtful to the girl136? Man has no power
to allow or to forbid, only God does, and his wishes are set out in
the Koran or by His Prophet137. If in spite of that, some countries
forbid female circumcision, it is a State decision and does not make
any difference: the religious law allows it 138.

4. To maintain the custom in the absence of misdeeds

Imam Shaltut, as mentioned above, does not see any reason for male
or female circumcision, either in the Koran or in the Sunnah of Mohammed.
To him, female circumcision has no medical value, the girl having no
foreskin to hold filth. He packs into one sack those for and those against
female circumcision: both groups go too far. He comes to the conclusion
that female circumcision could be a makrumah for men who are not used
to feeling the clitoris protruding; for the girl, it comes to the same
as taking care of her beauty, dabbing perfume or removing axillary hair
139. Elsewhere, Imam Shaltut is in favour of keeping
the tradition of female circumcision until proven harmful 140.

Sheikh Al-Nawawi comes to another result through the same
reasoning. For him, the narrations of Mohammed regarding female circumcision
are weak and do not have a raison d'^tre. Islam aimed to moderate this
practice among Arabs and it is still performed in this moderate form,
without ever becoming the rule, apart from exceptional cases. One cannot
make a rule out of one exception 141.

A less clear stand-point is taken by Al-Banna, Egyptian Deputy
Minister for Religious Affairs. To him, female circumcision cannot be
separated from the benefit criterion: God does not burden us, if there
is no benefit. So, if there is any value to circumcision, one must abide
by it. If not, one must give it up. Competent physicians must take a
stand, having considered all girls from different climates, because
the problem might not be the same in every country, or even with every
girl. If a girl is in peculiar circumstances, she must be circumcised;
if not, let Nature take its course, as God intended it. As long as no
study has been done, Muslims are free to go either way 142.

According to Professor Khallaf, physicians may not condemn
female circumcision based on isolated cases alone, but compare excised
and uncircumcised girls and then give their opinion. If they conclude
that female circumcision is harmful and as such, they decide to forbid
it, the prohibition will neither be contrary to a religious text, nor
to the unanimous position of religious scholars 143.

5. Permitted but soon to be forbidden because of adverse consequences

Doctor 'Abd-al-Wahid presents a strange reasoning, to say the least.
After stating that female circumcision is forbidden the same way as
it is forbidden to chop off one's finger, he admits that the Lawmaker
(God) gave permission for the sunnah, any excess being forbidden. However,
he adds that this form of circumcision is allowed, but not mandatory
and suggests that it be forbidden due to its medical and psychological
consequences, which he recounts in detail 144.

6. It must be forbidden

The most daring and most coherent opinion coming from a religious
leader against female circumcision is that of Sheikh Abu-Sabib, a Sudanese,
whom we mentioned earlier. He spoke at the Seminar on Traditional Practices
(Dakar, 1984). The narrations of Mohammed about female circumcision
are not reliable. They and the Koran do not require anyone to suffer,
when science proves the harm done by this mutilation 145.

Only the two last-mentioned opinions urge the banning of female circumcision
and opt in favour of physical integrity. Others take great care to saying
nothing about prohibition, even if some leave the choice up to the believer.
Let us study this prohibition at the State level.